Israel and the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor are locked in an ongoing legal standoff, submitting filings almost weekly in a heated third round of arguments over whether the court has authority to investigate alleged war crimes by Israelis—an issue hinging on the recognition of a “State of Palestine” capable of conferring such jurisdiction, the Jerusalem Post reports.

The ICC Prosecutor’s ability to proceed with arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant hangs in the balance, following a major procedural blow suffered on April 24 when the Appeals Chamber issued a ruling that temporarily halted the case’s momentum.
The arrest warrants, which have drawn international attention, pose a serious challenge to Israel’s global standing and could unleash a wave of diplomatic, legal, and economic fallout.
In a surprising turn for Israel, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber decision on April 24 instructed the lower court to take a more thorough look at Jerusalem’s objections to the court’s authority—a move that temporarily derailed the Prosecutor’s efforts.
This legal fight is not new; it marks the third time the ICC has grappled with whether Palestine meets the criteria to grant jurisdiction. The Palestinians prevailed twice before, in rulings delivered by the lower court in 2021 and again in November 2024.
As of July 3, Israel received permission from the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber to submit further legal arguments by August 1, extending the timeline of this high-stakes legal fight.
This extension followed three separate submissions by the Prosecutor’s Office—on June 18, June 27, and July 2—disputing Israel’s claims, along with additional legal filings from the Palestinian Authority during the same timeframe.
All these filings respond to Israel’s May 26 submission, which sought to build on its partial win at the Appeals Chamber in April by pushing for the case to be thrown out entirely for lack of jurisdiction.
Israel’s main arguments rest on two core positions: first, that there is no sovereign Palestinian state with defined borders; and second, that the Oslo Accords prevent the Palestinian Authority from delegating criminal jurisdiction over Israelis to international bodies like the ICC.
One legal angle Israel is leaning heavily on is the absence of PA governance in Gaza, especially in light of the 21-month war with Hamas. Another key point is that previous ICC dismissals of the Oslo-based argument lacked substantive legal engagement, according to Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, Israel still faces significant legal obstacles.
After its April Appeals Chamber success, Israel attempted another legal maneuver on May 9, asking the same court to halt the implementation of the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. That request was denied.
Amid this contentious legal backdrop, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan went on indefinite leave between May 17–18 following unrelated allegations of sexual misconduct involving an ICC staff member.
Instead of appointing a single interim Prosecutor, the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties chose to place both of Khan’s deputies in charge, creating a somewhat ambiguous leadership structure.
The dual leadership team—Mame Mandiaye Niang from Senegal and Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji—split their duties, with one focusing on investigations and the other handling legal prosecutions.
When the ICC submitted its May 21 brief responding to Israel, Shameem Khan signed the document, though it bore Karim Khan’s name in print. Since then, she has continued signing the briefs, indicating she is now leading the case during Khan’s absence.
Her continued authorization of the arrest warrants implies that even if Khan’s leave becomes permanent or ends in dismissal, Israel will remain under investigation by the ICC.
A pressing issue is whether the deputy prosecutors have the authority—or political will—to pursue additional Israeli officials, or if they’ll restrict themselves to maintaining the current proceedings against Netanyahu and Gallant.
According to The Wall Street Journal, just before taking his leave, Karim Khan was seriously weighing criminal proceedings against Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, citing their backing of Jewish settlement activity and their alleged incitement of violence in places like Huwara and Jit.
Back in May 2024, there were even discussions within the ICC about whether Khan should begin by targeting Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and the broader settlement enterprise before shifting his focus to Netanyahu and Gallant in relation to the Gaza conflict.
The reasoning behind this sequence was that there was a broader international consensus condemning settlement policy and its architects at the time. In contrast, Netanyahu and Gallant received a considerable amount of international support.
But now that the deputy prosecutors are at the helm—and with the ICC under pressure due to U.S. sanctions imposed by the Trump administration that have driven out several ICC personnel—Shameem Khan may choose not to broaden the charges at this time.
Unlike earlier rounds of this jurisdictional debate, which dragged on for over a year, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber is expected to issue a ruling relatively quickly, potentially within a few months.
{Matzav.com}